Christopher R. Hill, former US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, was US Ambassador to Iraq, South Korea, Macedonia, and Poland, a US special envoy for Kosovo, a negotiator of the Dayton Peace Accords, and the chief US negotiator with North Korea from 2005-2009. He is currently Dean of the … read more

Masters of War in Syria and Iraq

DENVER – The Middle East’s tragic tale of two cities – Aleppo in Syria and Mosul in Iraq – speaks to a fundamental lack of consensus in the region and within the broader international community. The lack of order in the international order is greatly complicating the task of bringing these conflicts to an end.

When the bloody conflict finally ends in Syria, there will be no victory parades, no moment of national catharsis. More likely than not, what there will be is a political arrangement that leaves Syria within its current borders but with local autonomy that reflects the diversity and – at least for the time being – the mutual distrust of its various ethnic and religious groups. No one will be happy. The accoutrements of a civil state do not exist, and there are no institutions around which to build social consensus or the rule of law.

Until these broad principles can be articulated, the war will never be truly over. Ceasefires work best – and hold the longest – when the combatants finally understand that a set of principles agreed by the broader international community will be the basis for shaping the future of their country.

The Syrian war is not unprecedented in the region. The Lebanese Civil War was even longer: from 1975 to 1990, that war produced a similar number of casualties and refugees, and when all is said and done, probably a similar number of unsuccessful ceasefires. The Syrian civil war is not yet even half the length of that horrific struggle; but nor is there any sign that the various combatants are fatigued by it.

The international community will likely be affected by Syria’s civil war more than it was by Lebanon’s, owing to its greater global impact. The refugee tide was at first contained within the neighborhood, especially in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and even Iraq. But soon refugees began to flow to Europe and elsewhere, causing political tensions in countries far removed from the conflict. The huddled masses of refugees crossing one European frontier after another soon became a metaphor for what angers so many Europeans in this globalized age.

The lack of international consensus on Syria, reflected in the failure of the United Nations Security Council’s permanent players to agree on a way forward, has caused the situation on the ground to worsen. Fueled by continued support of the combatants by Middle Eastern states (which seem to have no confidence in the international system), and with Russia’s direct participation in the fighting, the crisis has deepened.

Russia’s intervention on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has also caused further deterioration in US-Russian relations, which could fuel danger elsewhere in the world. US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov have so far failed to find any workable way forward to end the fighting.

One longs for the day that Kerry and Lavrov emerge from a negotiating room to announce to the world that they have agreed on a set of principles that will guide Syria’s future and will work to achieve consensus among other members of the international community and with the combatants themselves. Only when the combatants can envision the post-war future can a ceasefire work. Nobody wants to be the last person to die fighting when the future is already known.

In Mosul, the fighting is not a civil war. Unlike in Syria, where there must be tradeoffs among the combatants, in Mosul the struggle against the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) is a war of annihilation. And, in contrast to the Russian and Syrian offensive in Aleppo, the Iraqi Arabs and Kurds and their American advisers most likely worked for months to anticipate issues and to ensure success before the fighting began.

But it is already clear that there is far more at stake in the Mosul campaign than the eradication of ISIS. Depending on how it ends, we will know whether Iraq emerges as a multi-sectarian state or a set of sectarian and ethnic enclaves. Sunnis seem to want no part of the Shia-majority government in Baghdad, even though the Iraqi army (along with the Kurds) is playing the largest role in the fight against ISIS.

As if the Sunni-Shia divide within Iraq were not difficult enough, a deeper and even more problematic fissure has now emerged – Turkey’s own struggles with its identity and its externally imposed borders. The extraordinarily harmful statement by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan that his country has not reconciled itself to its 100-year-old southern border with Iraq’s Ninewa Province has greatly complicated Turkey’s ability to play a role in Iraq’s healing process. Arabs have long harbored deep suspicion that the Turks want more than just to protect the Turkmen minority and Sunni Arabs in the conflict. Now, Erdoğan has confirmed these suspicions, and in so doing has created conditions for more violence in Iraq.

How the fighting in Aleppo and Mosul ends will help clarify the tasks ahead. But until Russia, the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and others (Europe, is anyone home?) can come together around a set of principles that steer the region toward peace, the carnage will continue.

Incorrect please try again

Enter the numbers/words aboveEnter the numbers you hearCaptcha is invalid, generate another one and use it

Comments

Unfortunately, it is clear that Saudi Arabia has neither the political nor religious legitimacy to prevail in its quest for leadership across the Islamic world. Like Saddam Hussein, Saudi ambitions to reshape the region will falter and the increasing military role of the US and Russia will constrain the role of the Kingdom outside of its borders. In the interim, Iran has positioned itself to ensure that its security concerns are addressed and to act as the guarantor of the survival of Shia Islam within the region. Read more

The problem is that there is little to distinguish the campaign in Mosul from that in Aleppo. In both cases, you have foreign powers supporting Shia governments against Sunni resistance forces. The Sunni forces see this plainly and are far more likely to join hands in resistance than they are to accept American double-talk about how Iraq is totally different from Syria. Jabhat al Nusra's involvement in the recent rebel attacks in Aleppo may already reflect this. In the end, these parallel campaigns may simply produce a more unified and more radical Sunni resistance in Syria and Iraq that is less amenable to US influence. That is probably why Turkey is creeping closer to the battlefield in both states. Someone will have to fill the vacuum as US influence evaporates. Read more

Apparently there is a shia continuum from Iran to Hezbollah dominated Lebanon now that Irak is a democracy. If this continuum and allies (Russia, China) proves its ability to survive its challengers/ quality controllers (US, Israel, oil monarchies and friends) it might become a beacon of order and stability as well as a branch of the Chinese trade network. Read more

During the cold war, both Russia and the US had a working set of rules, to the point that the URSS felt confident enough to start its conversion, without war. If the US now sits and makes buddies of them, the two powers would rule the world, easily. For example, Churchill and Roosevelt started their close relation before the US public knew of it. Anyway, a sort of loose local hegemons is emerging (China, Germany, Israel, Russia, India, Japan). And confrontation spaces are becoming fuzzy, as are outer space, cyber space, submarines. Worse, next time interest rates rebound, payment of American debt interests will surpass the defense budget, and then ... the world we know will become history. Read more

According to Christopher R. Hill, the "masters of war" in the Middle East are Russia, the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and others (Europe). To be precise they are puppetmasters, who pull the strings, and control what goes on in the region. What makes it difficult for them to "come together around a set of principles that steer the region toward peace" is that they all have adverse interests - reflected by power struggle for regional hegemony between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and distrust between the two former Cold War enemies - the US and Russia.The "tragic tale of two cities" - Aleppo in Syria and Mosul in Iraq - is based on the "fundamental lack of consensus in the region and within the broader international community." Although the two Sunni-majority cities are under siege, they are different aspects of the same war - to fight ISIS - but have diverging fates. Regaining control of them will be an important turning point for the warring parties. Unlike Syria, Iraq is not fighting a civil war, its second largest city, Mosul is surrounded by the Iraqi army and the Kurds, assisted by US airstrikes. In Syria, Aleppo is surrounded by the Assad forces, supported by Russian airstrikes, and Iranian troops on the ground. But in both cities, civilians inevitably bear the brunt of heavy shelling, triggering a mass exodus of refugees, as their homes have been destroyed.While re-taking Mosul from ISIS is only part of the challenge, the Shia-led government in Baghdad, with its US-backed coalition will have to find a way to govern the city. A Sunni, oil-rich capital of Nineveh province, Mosul's pre-ISIS population made up of Sunnis, Kurds, Assyrians and Turkmens, as well as a variety of religious minorities. One major concern is the leading role Shia militiamen play in the offensive. They had been accused of sectarian abuses in other cities that have been recaptured. Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has sought to reassure the Sunnis by saying only Iraqi security forces would be allowed to retake Mosul. What comes after its liberation will determine whether Iraq would break up or survive as a unitary state. The Kurds have been seeking for independence or autonomy.Unlike Mosul, the eastern part of Aleppo is held by Syrian rebels, who fight Bashar al-Assad. His regime siege in Syria's biggest city serves to deprive its restive population of food and medicine, as a weapon of war. Vladimir Putin is exploiting Obama's inaction in Syria and help his stooge, Assad, regain as much lost territories as possible. Obama is stepping down in January and he will be succeeded - most likely - by Hillary Clinton, who might take a tougher stance towards Russia. Putin's involvement could amount to war crimes, as school children and hospital patients had been deliberately targeted.Indeed, the Sunni-Shia strife in Iraq spawned the rise of ISIS. But Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan's ambition is a new source of "a deeper and even more problematic fissure" in Iraq. He said not long ago that Turkey had a “historic responsibility” to participate in the offensive to retake Mosul, whether Iraq liked it to or not. His recent speeches invoked the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, adopted by the Turkish parliament, which included Mosul and Kirkuk as part of modern Turkey. That "his country has not reconciled itself to its 100-year-old southern border with Iraq’s Ninewa Province has greatly complicated Turkey’s ability to play a role in Iraq’s healing process." For long "Arabs have long harbored deep suspicion that the Turks want more than just to protect the Turkmen minority and Sunni Arabs in the conflict. Now, Erdoğan has confirmed these suspicions, and in so doing has created conditions for more violence in Iraq."It is most unfortunately that we are living in an era of thugs and autocrats, who make our world all the more dangerous. It is therefore important to have a strong international community that upholds international law.﻿ Read more

Is not the the entire Near East a fiction of artificial post-colonial boundaries? And is the US really any different than the EU in terms of engagement? The fact that we continue to refuse refugees is, to me, a moral abomination. America has ceased to be the lighthouse on the hill, or the torch in Lady Liberty's hands.

To me, realpolitik would involve a summit of the G-8 convened to forge a "JCPOA" for the Levant (Syria and Lebanon), with Turkey and the other relatively intact Arab states at the table. And maybe even Israel too.

In the absence of active leadership, Europe and the US are leaving an open door for Russia to establish regional hegemony. Despite Mr. Trump's fondness for Russia, I do not think that can be in the strategic interests of the West.

PS Among others, you can thank Professors Donovan and Rensenbrink for making me have these international views. Ah, those were the days...Go Polar Bears (not the Russian variety)! Read more

PS On Air: The Super Germ Threat

NOV 2, 2016

In the latest edition of PS On
Air
, Jim O’Neill discusses how to beat antimicrobial resistance, which
threatens millions of lives, with Gavekal Dragonomics’ Anatole Kaletsky
and Leonardo Maisano of
Il Sole 24 Ore.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Sign up to receive newsletters about what's being discussed on Project Syndicate.

EmailReceive our Sunday newsletterA weekly collection of our most discussed columnsReceive our PS On Point newsletterStay informed of the world's leading opinions on global issues

Why not register an account with us, too? You'll be able to follow individual authors (to receive notifications whenever they publish new articles) and subscribe to more specific, topic-based newsletters.

Project Syndicate provides readers with original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by global leaders and thinkers. By offering incisive perspectives from those who are shaping the world’s economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivaled global venue for informed public debate.